GENERAL MANAGER Vs. NANAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the judgment dated 4th June, 1986 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short the Act) and the judgment dated 20th August, 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar as an Appellate Authority under the Act should be set aside as both these judgments, according to the petitioner, are without jurisdiction.

(2.) Nanak Singh, respondent is employed as a driver in the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Depot No. 2 and its General Manager who is the petitioner herein is the employer under the Act responsible for payment of wages to the respondent. An application under Section 15 of the Act was filed by the respondent for recovery of wages. It was alleged therein that his annual increment had been illegally withheld by the petitioner vide orders dated 2nd February, 1982 and 6th August, 1982. The Authority under the Act vide its judgment dated 4th June, 1986 partly allowed this application. It held that the order dated 2nd February, 1982 passed by the petitioner withholding increment of the respondent was legal and valid but his order dated 6th August, 1982 was not a speaking one and did not satisfy the requirement of law and, therefore, deduction of wages of the respondent in pursuance thereof was unauthorised. As a result the petitioner was directed to pay to the respondent the wages withheld in pursuance of the latter order. It was however, clarified that the respondent would be entitled to restoration of the wages so withheld only for a period of 12 months preceding the date of application under the Act. Aggrieved against the said order an appeal under Section 15(2) of the Act was filed by the petitioner which has, however, been dismissed vide judgment dated 20th August, 1986.

(3.) In spite of service of notice of this petition no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have, however, heard Mr. G.C. Gupta, Advocate, no behalf of the petitioner. His submission is two fold. Firstly that the order passed by the employer withholding the increments of respondent No. 1 by way of punishment could not be adjudicated upon by the Authority under the Act and it was not within its power to hold that the same was invalid. It could not as such direct payment of wages allegedly withheld in pursuance of the orders withholding increment as a measure of punishment. Secondly, that the order of the petitioner withholding increment which has been considered invalid by the authority under the Act was passed on 6th August, 1982. Under Section 15(2) of the Act an application for payment of wages allegedly deducted was required to be presented within 12 months. However, in the present case the application was presented by the petitioner before the Authority after nearly two years in 1984. The same was, therefore, hopelessly barred by time. The authority as such could not assume jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.